Quote:
Originally Posted by gvitaly
Did you even look at the graphs i posted a post after you? of course you didn't!
|
No I didn't. Saw two twitter links and ignored them since twitter is such a great source of information.
Quote:
|
You had your mind made up already. Those fancy stats show McDavid at 3% for Defense, and Draisaitl at 0%. You just needed a reason to criticize another tool - stats. You do that with everything that doesn't fit your opinion, and frankly it gets old.
|
I criticize those "tools" because they attempt to build a correlation between unrelated events and then explain causation of events loosely associated with those unrelated events. The chaos of the sport and inconsistency in data collection makes every single one of these so called "stats" useless. Hockey is not like baseball where specific actions have binary outcomes and you can clearly measure and chart those events. You can no sooner model the sport of hockey by using shots on goal as a basis for everything than you can model baseball using number of throws any player makes during a game. Context of each event matters, and the stats used to try and model hockey are completely void of context. Context is manufactured in the comparison between unrelated events, which ultimately provides inaccurate or no meaning at all.
Quote:
|
People aren't suggesting trading Monahan for a bag of pucks. People are saying that a GM wouldn't want to overpay for Monahan after the season he had. He won't get a return strictly based on offensive career averages. It doesn't matter what you use, the eye test or fancy stats, they both suggest that Monahan's stock comes with a high risk.
|
Some are. Some have said Monahan should be exposed in the expansion draft. One suggested he could clear waivers. All of that is ridiculous. What makes it even more outrageous is many of the same drool over other players who had worse seasons. There is no doubt Monahan had a off year, but so did the entire team. Monahan does come with a level of risk, but so does every player. You have to determine if the juice is worth the squeeze. The statistical comparisons presented do not determine anything.